Fujifilm launches weather-resistant XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR

Fujifilm has announced its first weather-resistant lens, the Fujinon XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR, which is designed to match the high-end X-T1 mirrorless camera. Offering a versatile 27-200mm equivalent zoom range, the lens claims to have the world's most advanced image stabilisation system, which uses high precision gyro sensors to give a claimed 5 stop benefit. It also has an air ventilation system to help prevent dust being sucked into the lens by the zoom operation. It'll be available in July for £749.99 / $899.95.

Fujifilm launches its first weather resistant XF lens

Fujifilm Corporation (President: Shigehiro Nakajima) is proud to announce the release of its XF18-135mm high magnification, weather resistant, zoom lens. The XF18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR will be available from July 2014.

This latest addition to the company’s line up of profession-grade lenses for X-series interchangeable-lens cameras covers a wide shooting range of 27mm wide-angle to 206mm telephoto equivalent*1. It has the world’s most advanced 5.0-stop image stabilisation technology*2 and features a dust-proof and waterproof structure with weather resistant sealing applied to more than 20 different areas of the lens.

Product features

• The new XF18-135mm lens is suited to a variety of scene types and subject matters as it covers frequently used angles of view. These include wide-angle shooting, often used for landscapes and architecture with an excellent sense of perspective (27mm equivalent); a normal angle of view that naturally captures the image as it is (35mm, 40mm, 50mm equivalent); and telephoto, which allows you to zoom right in to capture portraits and sports scenes (85mm, 135mm, 200mm equivalent) with its 7.5x zoom.

• To achieve high descriptive performance with sharpness and rich contrast from the wide-angle to the telephoto, high-performance glass including 4 aspherical glass lenses and 2 ED glass lenses has been used. Multi-layer HT-EBC, which has high permeability (99.8%) and low reflectance (0.2%), is applied to the entire lens to effectively reduce lens flare and ghosting, which often occur in backlight conditions. Utilising the wide zoom range of the lens, there is more freedom in composition and selecting angles.

*1 35mm format equivalent

Fast autofocus (max. 0.1sec.)*2, silent operation

• The XF18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR uses an inner focusing mechanism*3 for rapid autofocus speeds. This was engineered by making the focus lens lighter and installing a linear motor. When this lens is combined with an X-series camera body*4 which is compatible with phase detection AF, smooth photography is offered with faster AF.

*2 Complies with CIPA guidelines, internal measurement, during high performance mode, according to Fujifilm as of June 2014*3 Method that moves relatively smaller lenses in the middle or at the end without moving the front which is composed of relatively larger lenses*4 As of June 2014, “FUJIFILM X-T1” and “FUJIFILM X-E2”*5 To ensure that autofocus performs as expected, download and install the latest version of the firmware for your camera.

The firmware will need to be downloaded from the following website and will be available from June 27th.

• In order to achieve the world’s most advanced 5.0-stop image stabilisation performance, the ability to detect movement in the low-frequency band was improved, and an algorithm to accurately sense blur from the detected signal was developed. Correction performance was doubled in the low-speed shutter range. This helps to support a lightly-equipped shooting style without the use of a tripod.

• The newly adopted high-precision gyro sensor is installed with quartz oscillators which detect movement from high frequency to low frequency bandwidths.

Dust-proof, weather resistant structure

• A dust-proof, weatherproof structure with sealing applied to 20 different areas of the lens barrel is resistant to typical atmospheric changes that occur in a natural environment, such as sudden rain, dust, and splashes of water.

• In order to improve the feel when adjusting the zoom, a ventilator has been placed on the inside of the base of the lens barrel. The structure effectively prevents dust particles and moisture from getting into the lens to ensure smooth operation.

• Designed to be paired with the Fujifilm X-T1 and its dedicated vertical grip VG-XT1 which also have dust-proof and weather resistant bodies.

Light-weight and compact design for excellent portability

• The XF18-135mm lens offers a wide shooting range, advanced image stabilization, and a dust-proof, waterproof structure, all in a compact structure.

• When combined with the X-T1, the camera and lens weigh a mere 930g. This highly portable weather resistant kit offers much improved flexibility and wider photo opportunities to the photographer.

• The adoption of 4 aspherical lenses, each of which delivers the performance of multiple general spherical lenses together, has been used to achieve the lens’ extremely short optical length. With an easily maneuverable size and good holding balance with the total lens length, a comfortable shooting style is promised.

Comments

I got this lens while visiting Tokyo several weeks ago. This is one amazing lens w/o distortion at any focal length. The OIS really works. I can get sharp pictures always at f/5.6, 1/20 @ 206mm; I did get good pix at 1/10 at times. The images quality are comparable to the other XF prime lenses (35mm f1.4, 23mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2) Since I own all the mentioned lenses, I did the comparison myself. This lens even outperformed my Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D in terms of sharpness among other things. The only complain I have is the lack of shallow DOF, something you should expect from a crop sensor.

So many people complaining about the price for "slow" lens. But speed is not everything people! Yes, $900 is not cheap, the Nikkor 18-140 is $500, but you get 1) 4 aspherical elements (Nikon & Canon has 1) 2) extra ED element (those are not cheap!), 3) weather sealing 4) better VR/OIS/IS (CIPA verified) and from the images I've seen, 5) better bokeh than any convenience zooms out there.

These are well worth the price imho. And if you look at the "premium" consumer zooms (Nikkor 16-85, Canon 15-85) - both long in the tooth (on modern bodies) and worse specs (not to mention the shorter focal range and lack of weather sealing) and difference in $100 for the Canon, $250 for the Nikkor.

With regards to the Nikon/Canon 16(15)-85mm lenses. The biggest benefit there is the wider angle starter point. Back when I shot Canon, I debated over the Sigma 17-70 or Canon 15-85. Ultimately I paid nearly twice as much for he Canon lens just to get the extra 2mm. The Fuji lens might be very good, we'll just have to wait for the reviews.

Last year I did a three-month motorcycle trip, almost 26.000km through all of Canada. I spend most nights in a tent on camprounds. I also did a lot of dayhikes, bike rides on rented mountainbikes and a rafting tour. I needed to carry or guard my heavy Nikon D700 with 24-120 and Tamron 70-300 for 24hours a day! For 90% of the pictures I used the 24-120.

It would have been such less of a burden, if I had already owned a X-T1 with the new 18-135 during that trip! It's half the weight and half the volume of my Nikon stuff. Yes, you might need to accept certain compromises when it comes to maximum apperture and optical quality, but there are for sure situations where you can't / don't want to carry a huge selection of high quality lenses.

Love the sound of 5 stop image stabilization. If that's accurate, bravo Fujifilm! However I want it in the body. Olympus 5-axis is great, but I'd love to see a an APS-C or preferably FF body from somebody with badass IBIS especially since my Sigma cameras have me spoiled with their incredible resolution. I want to be able to use primes to shoot in low light without flash without added bulk and expense of OIS built into lenses.

Well, not what I have seen. With my 100-300 mm on my EPL5, which has 2 axis IBIS the difference is negligable. This cam can be set in such a way that when I switch off the OIS, the IBIS kicks in. Half a stop advantage may be. What I have seen with the EM1 is that it is better than OIS of the 100-300. a lot better. So it depends on what IBIS we are talking about here, the latest version seems to be better than OIS...

Sigma ? I don't know any Sigma long range zoom that could be regarded as a benchmark. Sigmas Art lenses like the 1.4 35mm or the 1.8 18-35mm are fantastic, but these are completely different lens types. You can be quite sure that a 18-135mm never will reach these optiical heights. As many others already mentioned, a 18-135mm is made for convenience. It may well be a solid performer, but such a zoom range requires many optical compromises. So don't expect wonders.

For all those believing this 18-135 is not that big: you are right. The lenses that are on the way are even bigger: the 16-55/2,8 will have 77mm filter thread (itself indicating the bulk of the lens) and the 50-140/2,8... well, have a look: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/635/061/022.jpgKinda funny imaging this beast on a X-E2/X-M1/X-A1.

Absolutely, that's why the X-PRO2 will be launched first to accomodate the rumoured 16-55/2.8 and other telelenses better. At Photokina probably the X-PRO2 + 16-55/2.7 combo announcement ? Of course it also can be done (in lesser extent) with he X-T1 with the right add-on grip.

Superzooms are always pricey when bought on their own. My theory is that manufacturers use them primarily to lift sales on more pricey camera bodies by offering beginner users who don't want to change lenses what seems like a good deal when compared to the cost of the body and the lens separately.

Before harping about slow f/5.6 you people need to check your faster zooms if they are any good wide open. I recently got Sony 18-105/4 and it turned out a complete piece of something wide open. Never mind it couldn't match Fuji quality at f/4, it took going to f/8 to get something similar Fuji 55-200mm was already demonstrating wide open. If this new Fuji zoom is designed and built to the same standards I'd take a slow f/5.6 on any day vs anything faster and bigger that sucks anyway.

Totally agree here. This is a convinience zoom, probably mostly for tourism. So if it is worth $900 IQ-wise, it's a win. All the other manufacturers just don't make high quality travel zooms, as they think no one will buy it for $1k. Once again fuji made something differrent. And once again it suits my need just right.And hurray it's f5.6, guys, you need to unerstand, this is an all-around lens, which should be light and small, and it is already quite large with f5.6. If you want higher speed, go for 2.8 zooms. There is no one lens to rulethem all.

Nothing more annoying than this sort of ranting. There is no point opting for a compact system camera, and then screaming for a wide, long telephoto zoom. It must out of necessity be enormous. If you want such a lens, then buy a dSLR. Working with a CSC is all about embracing the smaller system, but accepting the compromises that a small size brings. If you want a fast prime, than Fuji have plenty. If you want a high quality zoom, then Fuji have plenty. If you want a high quality zoom with a long telephoto range, and a fixed 2.8 max aperture, you are looking in the wrong galaxy. Look at the options you have. if you compare with the Canon 24-70 2.8 (which is only about half as long at the long end) you are looking at almost twice the weight (490 vs 805 g). If you look at the Canon 70-200 2.8 with IS, then you are up to 1.49 kg ! Even if you accept f4 in the Canon 24-105, you are still at 670 g. So seriously forpetesake, take your whining elsewhere

While I can see making such a lens with constant f2,8 would make the lens unacceptably big and heavy, I think Fuji could have done it like with their standard zoom 18-55: just a bit faster, something between the kit lens speed f3,5-5,6 and fast constant f2,8. Lets say 18-105/2,8-4.

Paul JM: It's about options. Many people I know use primes to have a very portable mirror less system. But occasionally a fast zoom is advantageous, even if it costs wight and bulk. Nobody is forced to use or buy it. So your post is just an opinion of what you want, but please don't speak for everybody else.

It is also about keeping the range commercially viable. You may well feel that a huge lens on the front of this camera is going to sell. Fuji clearly (up to this point) dont. If you want to put a Canon 70-200 f 2.8 on the front of this camera, go and by an adaptor. No point flogging Fuji simply because they chose not to produce such an absurd combination. Not everyone wants to put Barbara Streisand's nose on Kate Moss' face.

not to mention, that if the stabilization will work as advertised on this lens, and if they will implement the same system on the 2.8 zooms.... you will have something like a 5stop stabilized 2.8 .... nice...

@PaulJM: so when you think it is pointless to make huge f2,8 zooms for CSC and you believe Fuji thinks the same, why would Fuji announce two constant f2,8 zooms? They will be even bigger than this 18-135, especially the 50-140/2,8 will be huge: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/635/061/022.jpgSo apparently your thoughts are not Fuji´s thoughts. ;-)

@Paul JMThe most annoying thing is when some weak-wristed whiner thinks their opinion is absolute and goes online to protest others who have a different opinion, and complain about manufacturers who just slapped them in the face with the reality of their products…

(In case you missed that, your ‘opinion’ that its all about being smaller is obviously not what it is all about - else Fuji, Olympus, etc, would not release larger lenses! O.o)

MILC’s are ‘all about embracing’ the freedom of OPTIONS.

Size is of little concern to many as most mirrorless systems are going to be smaller than dslr’s to begin with. Options allow someone to buy into a system that allows them the freedom to use just about any lens they want for whatever occasion arises. When they want something small and light they can slap on a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm prime just like we used to do back in the film days, and when they need the reach they are comforted in knowing there are full featured system lenses for that also.

Well not sure you have heard it 'all', as its certainly not evident in your assertions.. but the goal is to learn something new in the process. That is made considerably easier when you aren't telling everyone else they are wrong for not seeing things your way..

Cobber, the top post on this thread referred to Fuji as producing 'crap'. If you really agree then why are you bother bothering to post here ?Perhaps you need a ..................reality check............

Reminds me of the old MiG fighters that were big jet engines with fins attached. I think this argument grows out of the evolution of cameras to lenses with sensors attached. Seems to me that there is an insurmountable restraint to how small you can make optics with a given speed. Until some breakthrough comes along, you can't make a 2.8 long telephoto that won't overwhelm a compact mirrorless like an X-T1. It's a state of mind: start thinking of holding up a lens rather than a camera to get the shot.

There are a great many actually.. but when you come across them you realize what it is that really makes modern lenses larger - autofocus, thick plastics, and image stabilization.. forgo those things and you have hundreds of small fast lenses at your disposal.

jamesfrmphilly, I'm sorry but you're specifying so many constraints that we don't really have much left to work with.

I have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 that might possibly fit the bill, but you might consider it too large. Personally, I think its size is reasonable for what it can do. It was also priced very competitively.

If your draw your constraints in too tightly, something has to give, possibly the size of the image circle. And then we'll end up discussing fixed lens compact options such as the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7, the Olympus XZ-2, or the Pentax MX-1. Mind you, these cameras are very respectable options in their own right, if you want to go that way.

i'm just noting that most of the zooms introduced lately are slow.i can no longer carry a heavy DSLR around. i need a fast lens that is also light weight. the larger sensors have a weight penalty.my next camera will be a sony rx 100 mk3.

f-value alone, is "relative" only wrt Luminance (for a given sensor size positioned a SPECIFIC distance from the lens opening)

DoF IS VERY RELEVANT (= tied directly to aperture sizes)you can NOT claim DoF is irrelevant (affects image outcome)

For any given Luminance of a scenery, it is proportionately:

A) brighter on a smaller sensor sitting CLOSER toward a lens opening of a specific size (say XXmm); thus a 1mm opening will always have a 'faster' f-value than B (below) for identical AoV+FoV in proportion to the sensor.factor (size+distance)

B) darker on a larger sensor sitting FARTHER back from a lens opening of the exact same size (XXmm); thus a 1mm opening will always have a 'slower' f-value than A (above) for identical AoV+FoV in proportion to the sensor.factor (size+distance)

why settle for less?why settle for the ambiguity of just a ratio? (f-ratio)when it only conveys (sameness or differences of, relative) LUMINANCE ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

I prefer FULL up front disclosure aperture sizes (mm) that convey relevance of DoF for every AoV (FoV) per FL, offered by a lens/sensor system, not suppression of it as you would. Your inability to be technically explicit (precise) betrays to shortcomings of your point of view.

what is also missing is t-ratios, the relevance of light transmission (another issue altogether)

but the least i can convey is availability of DoF that is tied to Aperture Diameters (not otherwise reported openly)

Sdaniella, I don't mean to offend you, but your arguing is ultimately pointless. People don't need all that information to make better photographs. What they need is mostly subjective: an eye for the unusual, good aesthetic sense and compositional skills. Your calculations serve none of these purposes.Besides, you're making a basic mistake: aperture and focal length don't vary according to sensor area. What happens with small sensor formats is a compression of the field of view due to a given lens being used with a sensor that's smaller in area than the 35mm format it is supposed to function with. That's why many people prefer to call this phenomenon "crop factor", rather than "equivalence". All the theories you are trying to sustain are henceforth useless. Now go and make some meaningful pictures, rather than those silly exercises you're displaying at your gallery. Please... :)

@MVMI've never stated aperture dimensions and FL vary with sensor size (you are just stating things out of thin air)I am simply stating absolute values:Actual aperture diameters, without hiding it in f-values.Simple.No one should be upset about full clear disclosure of actual aperture dimensions relevant to image quality outcome wrt dof.

no "theories" are involved, just pure unadulterated lens specs in plain language.

attacking me as a person, or my gallery is a flaw is reasoning, and irrelevant to relevance in honest lens/sensor spec reporting.

you are doing the arguing on false grounds.I'm just doing plain FL/f-value conversions to aperture diameters.

get over my non-judgmental data provision.if dpr or mfrs provided this important info, I wouldn't need to, since others do not have the honesty to do it openly, I do it instead.

If this information is "so important" then why has every lens by every manufacturer since the birth of photography been named with it's f-ratio? f/3.5, f/5.6 and all other f-ratios are enough for beginner and professional photographers alike to make an educated assumption of how their image will turn out. No-one needs to know the exact size of that hole in the middle of their lens.

actually, it is the very ABSENCE of such information that leaves BOTH beginners and so called 'experts' constantly confused as evident in their absurd requests from mfrs to build lenses with absurd f-values incompatible with intent of each sized systems (smaller systems with intent on offering 'more compact' lenses are simply NOT going to offer aperture sizes bigger than their small lens can fit.)

which make up over 95% of all the absurd discussions on these forums wrt lenses, a waste due to ignorance (confusion persists due to lack of such information I list)

Oh, I'm so afraid of facing the truth about lens' aperture diameter... what will my life be after such revelation? How shall I ever photograph again? Suicidal thoughts are running through my mind. HELP ME PLEASE!!!On a positive note, Yabokkie is now facing serious competition.

An 18-xxx zoom with variable aperture is, to me, a convenience lens even if it is waterproof. It's good that Fuji has released it because it fills a slot in their lens lineup. Some people will buy it. But I am infinitely more interested in their promised 16-55 f/2.8 zoom. Wider and constant aperture.

Constant aperture is highly overrated.. You want aperture fixed, then set the lens at f/5.6 and it won't change. Variable aperture gets the widest aperture possible for the size of the lens being made. You want a fixed f/4 lens, then it will be bigger.

actual aperture dimensions are physical mechanical entities manufactured (engineered)to ask a mfr to offer 'faster lenses', one has to think in physical terms first from what is doable, not just pick a nice 'fast f-number' (f1.0) and plug it into an imaginary lens (your favorite FL zoom (AoV/FoV))!

Indeed.. on more than a few occasions, I wonder what 'sacrifices' have been made with these lauded fixed aperture lenses.. eg. could my 24-105 f/4 lens really have been an f/3.5-4 lens, but the maker decided that constant f/4 would be perceived as higher-end and sell for more money, so perhaps a conscious decision to make it fixed at the higher common denominator? you never know..

@ PicOnetrueadvertise what one can deliver for sure, even if not as wide openeven if wider aperture is possible, it doesn't look as good to the consumer:)

however, if mfrs started openly stating (labeling) actual aperture dimensions (mm) for every AoV (degrees) at every FL (mm), then we'd all see the actual 'raw' lens data in the open!!!(and easier to compare cross platform systems)

For Fuji users probably good news. A nice addition to already very nice lens setup. Fuji is not letting their users down!

To me personally it also demonstrates why i do not want a APS-c sensor for a mirrorless cam. Because it is a large and heavy lens. Just compare it to the panasonic 14-140. To me, for such bodies, such a lens makes more sense.

Apples vs Oranges all over again. Even putting aside more advanced and complex optical design, weather sealing, advanced image stabilization, Panasonic 14-140/3.5-5.6 is almost a stop behind at equivalent FLs? You can't fool the laws of physics, all the light collected by the lens aperture is transferred to the sensor and to the final image. Once you make lenses equivalent you find out that they have practically the same size and weight no matter what the sensor size is.

A lot of APS-C mirrorless users have the intent of using APS-C mirrorless as a replacement for APS-C DSLRs. If that's the intent, "such bodies" and "such a lens" makes perfect sense. Because when combined with an entire kit in your bag, it results in a noticeable reduction in size, weight, bulk in your camera bag compared to a comparable DSLR gear collection.

I use m4/3. But I still have a preference for APS-C. I'm torn between the compactness of m4/3, and the larger sensor size of APS-C. However, both are a significantly lesser load compared to lugging around DSLR gear.

@ Jogger: how is this relevant to a new sense, it specs and what we think about it? @ Pete: In the end no 100% comparable lenses wil be made. They have the same fstops etc. Panny is much lighter, smaller but not weahtersealed. The Fuji is but has 28-200 instead of 28-280 mm range. Etc. I said that for me, this difference is precisely why I will not buy a mirrorless APS-c. For others it will be what they like. That is all.

@ T3: the lenses are nit smaller at all. The more lenses you carry, the smaller the difference. With m43s the more you carry, the bigger the difference with APS-c. Besides I already noted that for Fuji users this indeed is a very nice addition.

The 14-140mm it weighs 265 gram. Reviews note that it is good lens in its class, a notable fast focusser and much smaller than any APS-c version. Sounds like the reason why I bought m43s: smaller bodies and lenses, not just smaller bodies...

Daniel: I can understand that! There are two versions and the smallest and newest seems to be better. But I understand it. I have the 45-175 and since I have also have the 35-100 the 45-175 appears unsharp. It probably isn't, but the detail the 35-100 produces is just stunning.

My point being while the Fuji 18-135 isn't the fastest zoom, it does appear to be not be as soft as your typical superzoom. I love the Panasonic 35-100. I also like the Panasonic 100-300 which is performs incredibly well.

@bluevellet - I think it's rather short-sighted to be so dismissive of this lens just because it has slower variable aperture specs. Hasselblad makes some slow variable aperture zooms for their medium format H-system. It doesn't mean these lenses are cheap kit lenses! Not everyone needs fast apertures on all lenses. Sometimes, you just want the zoom range, but you still want good optical performance.

@bluevellet - This lens is actually far from unspectacular. If Fuji made it as good as optically as their previous lenses, it's a pretty darn good lens. It's going to be just 1/2 stop slower than their 18-55 kit, but 2.5 times longer, all that in a sealed package, rather small size and weight, priced under $1G. Find anything better or even comparable in the market today.

Fujinon is already one of the most respected lens manufacturers.They just produce lenses that are not for the typical consumer (broadcast lenses, satellite optics, medium format lenses for its GX cameras, Hasselblad H series, X-Pan and so on).

I'd suggest reserving judgement until the tests and user experience are known. I just bought the 55-200 and compared it against my Canon 70-200f4LIS on the 7D and they are very close in IQ and the Fuji is like half the price and much smaller/lighter. It's also not gawdy white which is nice for street shooting. Very impressed with the 18-55 too. Both lenses are very sharp across the frame at all apertures and FL's which is more than I can say for my Canon FF zooms even on my APS C 7D.

I thought it would be f2.8-f4, like the sped up 55-200 they offer. This is just a double price pentax lens. I'm sure it will be a little sharper throughout than the pentax version (which is a much older lens to be fair), I just think Fuji at it's best is pushing APS-C past the capabilities of it's competitors offering a nice niche between the APS and FF products of other lines.

With no FF system to worry about, Fuji's focus on APS-C should mean they can beat the standard offerings. Fuji's a little more expensive but that makes sense if they're delivering brighter apertures on the same size sensor.

The Fuji 55-200 that I have is 3.5-4.8. Is there a new one coming that you know about?I agree, though - I thought it would be faster like their other zooms are compared to the competition. Instead they tout the 5 stop OIS, which is no substitution for lens speed in many cases (when stuff is moving). I do wonder whether there's anything to be read between the lines that the next gen cameras (not some repackaging but updated sensor) would perform 1 stop better, but I'm over-assuming here for sure.

nobody offers such a lens, where did you get it? If Fuji made the 18-135 a stop brighter it would have been 2-3 times heavier and correspondingly more expensive. Not many people would trade it for a stop. Also comparing it to a mediocre Pentax lens is ludicrous.

I guess that wasn't clear. Several Fuji zooms (and they don't make many) are faster than what you'd expect. Their 18-55 is 2.8-4.0 instead of the standard 3.5-5.6 and their 55-200 is 3.5-4.8 instead of 4.0-5.6. I just thought a similar aperture advantage for this common ranged zoom would be 2.8-4.0. Perhaps 2.8 to 4.8? Regardless, I expected an aperture advantage when comparing to Canon/Nikon.

Please read as "I thought it would be faster than the direct competition like several of the other Fuji zooms covering other ranges"

"Weather-resistant"A worthless designation, now popular with many manufacturers since it actually costs nothing to offer. What are the chances of getting a warranty replacement/repair when these weasel-words fail to protect the electronics from water ingress? Slim I'd say. You'd be told you got it "too wet".

WR - It's just a marketing thing... Nobody is going to shoot in pouring rain. You get wet, the front element gets wet, you can't see... Dust? Well, if you care about your gear, you clean the lenses on regular basis, regardless...

It's surprising how thoroughly damp your equipment gets when working in inclement weather, even if you do your best to keep the camera out of the rain proper. "WR" gives you peace of mind that moisture will not seep through and damage the internals is this kind of situation as all the seams should be sealed.

Just like a water resistant watch, it is not for swimming with. Warranty claims after such abuse would be rightfully dismissed.

@ tkbslc - I don't know what's "boring" about an 18-135 zoom range. That zoom range covers a lot of ground, and it's a lens that you could keep on your body quite a lot. Not everyone needs faster apertures all the time. Sometimes you just want a good zoom range, and good IQ across that range. The Fuji 18-135 seems like it has the potential to do that. And with excellent image stabilization and weather sealing to boot! Not everything is about aperture, aperture, aperture.

It's not very wide, nor very long, nor very fast. Sure it's useful - I never said it wasn't. It's like a basic family sedan - pretty boring for car enthusiasts. This lens is boring. And it's got minivan specs with sports car price sticker.

@tkbslc - it's not a boring lens. Maybe you're just a boring photographer! LOL. Seriously though, would you consider a 35/1.4 non-stabilized lens a boring lens because it's not very wide, not very long, has no stabilization, and has zero range? Like I said, maybe it's you who is boring. Yeah, sure, you can load up on a bunch of fast primes, or shorter zooms with constant apertures. But there is absolutely a usefulness to having a lens that you can keep on your body, without having to constantly swap lenses. In some conditions, swapping lenses means missing shots. Furthermore, in some dusty, windy conditions, it's best not to change your lens at all because doing so would easily introduce dust into the body! Even worse if it's rainy and wet! Yes, many of us shoot in those conditions! So having a weather sealed 18-135 zoom is a huge benefit to us! Maybe you don't realize this, because you just shoot in more "boring" conditions! LOL.

Far too many people here sit around griping about specs, sitting around waiting for the "perfect" lens or body, rather than seeing the potential of existing lenses and bodies, and going out to shoot with them. Yes, fast primes or shorter zooms with constant apertures are great. But they are just one tool in your tool box. A lens like this weather sealed image stabilized 18-135 (with, hopefully, very good IQ) is another tool in your tool box. And given its range, weather sealing, and stabilization, I think it should be a far more versatile tool than most narrow-minded specs-whiners realize.

ooh, a double response. Now that is exciting! Thanks for all the time you invested to put me in my place.

I still think an 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 is a boring lens, even though I own one. It's for the easy shots that literally any lens could take and the only concern is framing it right. I didn't pay $900 for mine, though.

"It's for the easy shots that literally any lens could take and the only concern is framing it right."

You mean "any lens", as long as it's somewhere between 18mm and 135mm? LOL. That's the point of having such zoom range: it covers focal lengths from 18mm to 135mm, without having to swap lenses! And if it can do it while being weather sealed, delivering excellent image stabilization, and delivering good IQ, all the better! At least that's how I see it. And yes, if a lens can deliver all these things, then it should be able to command a higher price.

Lenses are neither inherently boring nor exciting. It's all about what you do with them. One man's "boring" lens is another man's "exciting" lens; it just depends on what you're doing with them. If you don't have the capacity, creativity, or vision to do anything interesting with them, any lens is going to be "boring". So maybe the person behind the lens that is boring.

The idea with this lens is to combine high image quality with a useful zoom range and a relatively reasonable price and size. It's an 18-135. No way an APS lens with a x7.5 zoom range is going to be constant aperture, and no hope at all that it would start at f/2.8. Once again proof positive that many dpreview readers are completely divorced from reality.

You said, "Sadly they picked a pretty boring zoom range and aperture". Implying that Fuji should, to make you happy, have made a lens with a faster aperture and/or a more extensive zoom range. To which I conclude you gave little grasp of the checks and balances involved in lens design.

"OR" being the key operator there. If they had made it a 16-85 f3.5-5.6, that's more exciting because it hits 24mm equivalent on the wide end. If they'd have made it 17-50mm f2.8, that's more exciting because I can shoot in low light. As is, it's not wide, not very long, not very fast and not very affordable.

Worth noting for those in the UK that you may well get one of these at a significantly reduced price. I registered an X-T1 (body only) with them last week and received an e-mail from Fuji (UK) today advising that I would be offered a £250 discount once this lens is available. Fuji will email again me once the lens is in stock with instructions on how to claim the discount. This offer will end 31st August 2014. That makes this lens a pretty good deal in my mind

Here is an actual user review done by a pro photog. Read it rather than guesstimating what it will and will not do!http://www.aboutrc.com/2014/06/16/real-world-images-w-fuji-xf-18-135-3-5-5-6-ois-weather-resistant-lens/

Very expensive at this price. I had the impression, too, that Fujifilm lenses are all great but they are not all that impressive according to reviewers such as Photozone. E.g. the 18/2 has 4.8% native distortion, CAs, field curvature, and low-res periphery; the 35/1.4 has low-res periphery until F5.6 and slow AF. There are really good lenses from Fujifilm but cost three-to-four times more than their 18/2. And many suffer from slower-than-competition AF.

The 18 is their weakest lens so if you want to pick on Fuji lenses, you chose the correct one. That said, if you're going to complain about it you might also mention that it is a very small pancake lens. That is the reason for its compromised performance.

I do not pick on Fujifilm lenses. When I decided to try the system I looked for lenses and found out that the 16-50 is mediocre, the 18/2 problematic (and not a true pancake like the 27/2.8), and as for the other "good" ones, very expensive. I'm not interested in picking on any manufacturer's lenses, have better things to do with my time. The 18/2 was highly praised was released for its construction and size so I started with it to realise how mediocre it was.

he reason the 16-50 is mediocre is that it's their cheaper kit offering which comes with the LCD only XA1 and XM1 bodies. It doesn't come with any other bodies. The 18-55 is a much better kit zoom and the 35 f1.4 is also great.

Unless glass ends up not being the answer - ceramics, liquid lens elements, perfected Fresnel lenses, etc. - theoretically we could have much lighter and/or smaller lenses if a new material is found or perfected.Alternatively, replacing the metal parts (not sure what role these have in the lens weight) with newly developed materials like Graphene composites may help with at least weight if not size.Physics with current materials is, as you write, unavoidable.

No, mirrorless lenses aren't "huge". I think people should reserve their judgment regarding the size of these lenses until they actually have one of these lenses in their hands. Meanwhile, DSLR users don't seem to mind using lenses that are just as proportionally large on their DSLR bodies as this lens is on a mirrorless body! And a lot of DSLR lenses are TRULY HUGE. Not to mention the fact that all DSLR bodies, even the small ones, are bigger compared to mirrorless bodies. Which results in body + lens combos that dwarf any mirrorless body + lens combo! It's total hypocrisy.

@tkbslc - but you're forgetting that the X-T1 is the largest mirrorless body Fuji makes. When Fuji's *largest* body is the same size as the *smallest* DSLRs, that's still saying something about the size advantage of mirrorless. But the 20mm reduction in mount depth counts for a lot, especially in real world usage. Visually, a mirrorless body, even a "big" mirrorless body like the X-T1, produces a very slim visual footprint when you're out and about with it. It makes even small DSLRs look downright fat. Plus, the slim profile of mirrorless bodies means they take up very little room in a camera bag. You can slip a mirrorless body into a side pocket of a camera bag that a DSLR body-- even a small DSLR body-- would never fit into. Even better if you carry two bodies. And even better still if the second body is one of Fuji's smaller mirrorless bodies.

IMHO All of the Fuji XF lenses are excellent. This lens looks like a great addition to the line. These lenses are ready for a higher resolution sensor if Fuji decides to release a new one in one of their future cameras.

Such typical banter regarding the 18-55 "kit" lens. It is perhaps the most wrongly maligned lens out there. I've had the Nikon, Canon and Sony so called equivalents and they don't deserve to be in the same room as the 18-55 OIS. It is exceptional assuming of course you haven't gotten a duff copy which I don't happen to think there are many out there of. As for this new kid on the block, I'm sure for many it will be an essential tool. I prefer the faster 18-55 and frankly I don't shoot in rain conditions nor terribly dusty either so it's of no advantage to me. If I really need longer focal ranges I'll slap on my all time fav the 55-200 OIS which always gets it done as well.

Just look at the posting history of abortabort. He is just here to bash Fuji. So every comment on his postings is just wasted time... I just i have a week spot for trolls, else i wouldn`t have written at all ;)

What unless we all fall into line with the Fuji clan we are trolls? Please. I've owned the 18-55mm and it was ok, faster than a normal kit lens and better built, optically it is on par with many modern kit lenses. It also retails for something like $800 so it would want to be all those things.

@BarnET. Comparing the Fuji 18-55 to the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is a daft comparison. The Nikon is a large, professional lens that is 26-85mm f/4 equivalent. It is reasonably wide at the wide end, and reasonably fast at the long end.

The Fuji is a zoom optimized for compactness, equivalent to a 28-85mm f/4-6. It is not particularly wide, and it is slow at the long end.

Woot? This is a kit zoom tartied up to be a premium lens by putting lipstick on a pig. Wow its got a million stops of IS so I can marvel at how good it is taking pictures of figurines on my desk and explaining to forums how great it is. But let's not forget the weather sealing! How great will it be to use an overpriced kit zoom in the rain, amazeballs! There is a reason lenses like this don't usually get the pig in lipstick treatment...

"Pig in lipstick" typically refers to things that merely get superficial treatments to make them appear better than they are. But I don't think that applies to this lens at all.

Firstly, the weather sealing is REAL. And a lens you can comfortably use in the rain is still better than a lens you can't use in the rain! A lens doesn't take very good pictures if it's sitting in your camera for fear that water might get into it.

Secondly, are you really dismissing the value of improved image stabilization as something you only use to take pictures of figurines on your desk? Sorry, but the rest of us shoot out in the real world, were any improvements in images stabilization are welcomed.

Thirdly, you make claims about the IQ of this lens; can you please show us the rests of the extensive testing you've done with this lens?

Fourthly, there's not much point in comparing it to other zooms with much shorter zoom ranges. This is no 18-55 lens. It's an 18-135 lens.

I'm all for IS, but honestly for those of us actually shooting in the real world, the difference between 4 and 5 stops of IS is pretty worthless unless shooting still life in the dark.

As for weather sealing, yes it is useful, but most systems have a decent selection of weather sealed lenses, not normally optically compromised super zooms (don't go telling me this is a 'magic' lens because it's a Fuji, which are usually average to good). Sure as Fuji's only weather sealed lens it might be of benefit for Fuji users.... like putting a big wing on a golf, it produces more down force, but that isn't terribly useful, but does work if that's all you have.

@ BarnET - Why isn't the Sony a 'kit' zoom but the Fuji is? It retails about the same as the Fuji and adds roughly similar cost to a camera package... So you are really clutching at straws to find ways to define the Fuji as 'the magical kit zoom' and disregard others. The Canon kit zoom performs similarly optically but is slower, cheaper made bit importantly also much cheaper. The Canon kit zoom outperforms the 'real' Fuji kit zoom, the 16-50mm.

Slower variable apertures do not indicate a typical "kit" zoom. That's just plain idiotic prejudice and bigotry, making a judgement merely on the most superficial of observations. I'll bet you do a lot of that in your life with other things too.

@T3 - Chill. Going nuts over a lens and spewing stuff like "bigotry", and insinuating OP is a bigot in other things in life because he considers f/5.6 a slow kit lens is not a sign of stable mental health, not to mention it is an utterly unwarranted insult to Jogger.

Fuji (and other mirorless too) make some really small and nice looking cameras,but all accompanied with big lens. (I know the reason for that) ;-)No matter how much I like camera body, I just I don't see the point.Why I should have a camera with body sized almost as a smartphone with lens size of half-used roll of toilet paper?!

How it would look like if they produce lens for wildlife? (since most mirorless already have a weather sealed version)

They should make a body wich gives a comfort while you hold a lens like this.

An SLR with a +200mm lens on it is a lot bigger than this. CSMs are always going to have to strike a camera vs lens compromise if they are going to produce longer zooms with quality optics.

You have to understand how this stuff works. You can't just stamp your feet and expect a 300mm pancake lens - it doesn't exist, no matter what size the body. The closet thing you will find is on the superzoom cameras, but nobody wants one of those & they're not that small either.

If you want to shoot wildlife then you need a longer lens. So pick up the lens, put it in your backpack, go to the landscape, put it on a tripod & photograph the wildlife. Does it matter what size the lens is?

If you want a walk around, take anywhere, travel zoom, either take this lens with it's range and size (yes, it's still much smaller than the SLR equivalent) or as suggested already, buy a travel 'superzoom' camera.

You don't need this lens if you're questioning it's validity - that's the point you can't see.

In the DSLR world, we regularly use very large lenses that are easily as proportionally larger than our DSLR bodies as this lens is on an a Fuji body. And yet, you never hear of DSLR users complaining "I don't see the point!"

The "point" is that even if some lenses are large, you still get an *overall* reduction in size when you consider the overall collection of mirrorless equipment you have in your bag. An overall reduction in size and weight is still an overall reduction in size and weight. Less to lug around, less in your carry-on bag at the airport, etc.

Furthermore, if you are supporting the size and weight of a lens solely from the camera body (and thus, your desire to have "a body that gives a comfort while you hold a lens like this") then you're not using proper holding technique. With larger lenses, you support the lens with your left hand. If you do that, it really doesn't matter how big or heavy the lens is, your camera body can handle it.

@jadot - no they are not. the EF-S 18-135 is a smidgen larger, and lighter.

also the lens has an equivalent field of view of a 200mm lens - it's not a 200mm lens.

Maybe you should understand how this stuff works. ;)

you'll save size on prime lenses under the registration distance focal length of a larger registration distance lens if you don't have to make it retrofocal - otherwise there's very little to gain from a short registration distance mount. (ie: under 45mm for canon EF versus under 18mm for Fuji)

@jadotYou got me wrong. Or I didn't expalian right.I m not complaining on lens only or on body only. But on two of them together! This combo feels bad in hand when you actually take more photos during a day. It looks big on XT-1 wich have better hand ergonomy than XE-1.

I own SLR, Fuji X100, Ricoh and I know how it is to hold each of them. When you have bih with hands like I do (205cm tall guy I'm) it just don't fit right. They don't suit well together. That's what I wanted to say.

@T3please read my post aboveplus,I know what kind of and size are lenses in DSLR world,as well how to hold a large lens and body while shooting.

I can agree that for bag - lighter equipment and even 100g less means something. But I don't agree that size matters when you hold a camera with big lens and shoot for longer period. Dont tell me the lens in this article would give same comfort on DSLR (if you could put on it,of course) and on Fuji X-T1,not to say X-E1,E2.

@ZoranHR - you need to learn how to hold a lens! We DSLR users regularly hold MUCH larger lenses for very long periods of time (Canon 24-70/2.8L, Canon 70-200/2.8L, Canon 100-400L, etc). And we don't do it by supporting these very front-heavy lenses with the camera bodies they are mounted on! We do it by supporting these very large and heavy lenses with our left hand sitting below the lens. I've shot these big lenses on small Rebel bodies with no problems. Again, it's merely a matter of proper hand-holding technique. It's a misconception that the best way to hold a large and heavy lens is to add a large and heavy camera body. That just adds to the overall size and weight you have to support with your body! And. no, that's not more comfortable!!!

With this Fuji 18-135 zoom lens on any of Fuji's mirrorless body, I would simple use proper handholding technique: support the lens with your left hand. No big deal.

@ZoranHR - maybe you're the kind of guy who holds his camera by having both hands on each side of the camera body, like you're holding a small book in front of your face. LOL. Yeah, if that's your handholding technique, then lens size will be an issue! Nothing but the smallest lenses will be comfortable to hold if you're using that method. But with proper holding technique, any camera + lens combo can be comfortable to hold. With *your* holding technique, only the smallest, shortest, lightest lenses will be comfortable to use.

@T3You have my respect for explenation how to hold a lens and camera. That'is very kind from you! I'm not ironic,sarcastic or whatever you imagine.

Just because of your kindness and politness I'll be polite too and say it like this:1. I Know how to hold a big and long lens! If you want to know,I hold just like you described. I'm artisan. I use a lot of tools in my job and for each and every of them finding a "best and position in hands" is crucial for safety and good final work. For my hans it's something that comes naturally after 20 years of experience.

2. I konw that long telephoto lens on DSLR's are in even bigger disproportion with body compared with Fuji and this new lens above.

3.My modes vision of all Fuji's cameras so far... let's say like this: I wouldn't carry them on safari in Africa,I would't give them to sport event shooter,I wouldn't put them on intense job,neither in hursh environment. Doesn't matter how sealed they are and how good their AF is. I just wouldn't.

4. I would bring Fuji on trip to Venecia, Paris, some nice and pleasent nature. Generally, I see Fuji's in urban areas with little bit of nature. Like SUV vehicles. And that is great,no complains from me!

5. With no.4. in mind, big and hefty lens just don't go. Focal range is convenient,for shure,but also too long!

Such a long focal range + big size of lens = it's missing this good way of Fuji lineup.

Two reasons above are crucial for not liking it. It's not same pair of shoes at all. But I guess some people will like it and that's fine!Cheers

Fuji started X-mount with a rangefinder portfolio of three primes, filling out the range to consumer mirrorless cameras and cheap zooms, and with the X-T1 moving up to a enthusiast dSLR competitor so its only natural that there should be 2-3 high-end WR zooms put out for it, too.

Fuji have about the most natural and reasonable lens release schedule imaginable, and one which is prime-centric to boot. And you can put anything you want on the front with the appropriate adapter.

$900 for 18-135/3.5-5.6! Fuji is not exactly shy.For comparison Canon's new 18-135 IS STM costs $550 (Canon's old $500), Sony's $500 , Nikon's new 18-140 is also $500, Pentax 18-135WR also $500 - hell, you can buy whole WR k-50 with 18-135 for $900!And it is harder (more expensive) to reach 18mm on a DSLR!

How many of those are weather resistant tho? I'm not saying that excuses the very large price premium for a shorter lens (in a super zoom category that's usually about some degree of compromise anyway), but it's something. I'm curious whether the quoted venting and IS are actual advancements of either feature or if it's marketing hype.

Seems the Pentax is probably the only other one with some weather resistance, from reading the comments below anyway... The new Panasonic 14-140 is impressively small tho, it's no larger than a standard DSLR 18-55 and smaller than some even. Obviously a compromise on other ways but still.

You don't HAVE to bring rear element closer, you have an OPTION to do so, in fact you don't have to do retrofocus design to reach 18mm on mirrorless, and digital correction built into profiles of the mirrorless lenses (even Leica-T, despite Leica's claims to the contrary) allow for much higher distortion too.

You have to keep in mind that the volume of production can have a significant impact on unit pricing. DSLRs are far more numerous, and their lenses are going to be produced in much, much greater volumes, thus reducing their prices. Fuji is not a high volume manufacturer on the level of a Canon or Nikon or any DSLR manufacturer, for that matter. And, of course, whether sealing adds cost, too.

In the automobile world, people accept that there are large variations in pricing from one brand to the next, even from fairly similar types of cars. No one freaks out about that. Same with watches. Same with a lot of industries. And yet, when there are pricing differences in the photographer world, people freak out! Get over it. The photo equipment world is no different from any other industry. There can be differences in pricing from one brand to the next. Get over it.

The only apples to apples comparison is the Pentax 18-135 WR. This is an APSC lens and weather resistant. It costs $500 as you say. The reason it is cheap is it is a screw-drive AF lens. The stabilization is sensor shift. No built in motor. No optical image stabilization. It's also fairly cheaply built, and not that great optically.

So, add $100 for better optics, $100 for built in AF, $100 for VR, and $100 for X-mount build quality = $900.